DevX Agent Hub

API endpoint health + security audit

api_health_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

API health and security audit of one public http(s) endpoint: 3-10 sample requests for uptime, status codes and latency (p50/p95), TLS certificate and expiry, security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Content-Type-Options, frame options), CORS policy, rate-limit headers, caching, compression and response validity, with a score and prioritized fixes. Only the given URL is probed; optional probe headers are never stored. $9 USDC on Base via x402; invalid input and failed runs are not charged. Most x402 clients cap one payment at $0.10 by default; raise the cap for this tool. Price: $9 per run. First call returns the x402 PaymentRequired (no charge); retry with payment in _meta["x402/payment"].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "api_health_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) API endpoint to audit
`body`	No	Optional POST probe body (string or JSON, max 16 KB)
`method`	No
`headers`	No	Optional probe headers (never stored or echoed)
`samples`	No
`requestKey`	No	Optional idempotency key: same payer + requestKey + input returns the stored result without a second charge (7 days).
`x402_payment`	No	Optional. Base64 x402 v2 PaymentPayload, for clients that cannot set params._meta["x402/payment"]. Omit on the first call to get the exact price.
`expect_status`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations: sampling count (3-10 requests), what is and isn't persisted (probe headers never stored), billing behavior (invalid input and failed runs are not charged, $9 USDC on Base), idempotency replay window, and the x402 client-cap gotcha. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then cost and payment mechanics; almost every clause carries information. The single long enumerated sentence of checks is dense and could be split, but nothing is redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (status codes, p50/p95 latency, TLS expiry, header findings, a score and prioritized fixes) and covers pricing, retry semantics, and idempotency for an 8-parameter tool. There is no material gap for invoking it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 63%, and the description compensates on the important ones: the 3-10 sample range, the never-stored nature of headers, and the relationship between the _meta payment path and the x402_payment parameter. It says nothing about method, body, or expect_status, which remain schema-only, so it stops short of full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource (audit one public http(s) endpoint) and enumerates exactly what is checked: uptime, status codes, p50/p95 latency, TLS expiry, security headers, CORS, rate-limit headers, caching, compression, response validity, plus a score and prioritized fixes. It never names the obvious sibling api_health_audit_demo (free/demo variant) or domain_email_security_audit, so an agent has to infer the distinction from the price line rather than being told.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear operational context: only the given URL is probed, and the payment handshake is spelled out (first call returns x402 PaymentRequired with no charge, retry with payment in _meta["x402/payment"]). It also warns that most x402 clients cap at $0.10 and the cap must be raised. Missing: any statement of when to use this versus the demo variant or the other audit tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All DevX Agent Hub tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?